Not to Move on This Bill Would Be a Crime : Getting hung up on the racial-disparity issue

Is the $30-billion crime bill about to be mugged?

The ambitious and much-needed legislation promises more cops, more prisons and more drug treatment, among other things, in the war against crime. Given the broad public appeal, approval should be a slam dunk in Washington. Not so.

The legislation remains stalled in a joint House-Senate conference committee. The major sticking point for the White House, conservative Democrats and most Republicans is the part known as the Racial Justice Act. The proposed act, which is in the House version but not in the Senate’s, would allow defendants convicted of capital offenses to appeal their sentences by using statistics to argue that the death penalty is applied in a racially discriminatory fashion.

Liberal Democrats insist on this protection because the crime bill would expand the death penalty (which this newspaper has long opposed) to 63 additional offenses. A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus strongly champions the provision in the interest of fairness, mindful that the number of African Americans who are sentenced to die, particularly if their victims were white, is a disproportionate percentage of the death-sentenced prison population.

Equally mindful of the stalemate caused by the proposal are Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), the chairman of the Black Caucus; Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), the sponsor of the anti-bias safeguard, and other supporters, including the American Bar Assn., the American Jewish Congress, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Urban League. A proposed compromise would prohibit retroactive and repeat claims of racial bias to eliminate a new burden on the judiciary. It would require proof of discrimination to relate to the individual case and not depend solely on statistics. It would also expressly prohibit quotas for Death Row and a blanket invalidation of the death penalty in a specific jurisdiction. These changes are reasonable; but the changes don’t please the White House or enough Republicans and conservative Democrats. A permanent deadlock would be unfortunate because the crime bill has plenty of good features.

Most attractive is the promise of 100,000 additional police officers financed by new community policing grants and a novel police corps, modeled after the ROTC. It would put more cops on the streets by rewarding a commitment to four years in law enforcement with scholarships. Despite the roaring demand and undeniable need for more officers by cash-strapped cities like Los Angeles, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), an influential member of the conference committee, contemplates scaling down the police corps. That would be a tragic error. It is not for nothing that Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams and other top cops are begging for help.

The crime bill’s assault weapons ban, pushed aggressively by California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also would make the streets a little safer. It, too, should be retained.

Washington talks tough on crime every year. Yet so many worthy bills die. If the Administration sticks to its rejection of the sensible compromise on the racial justice matter, it at least must give liberal House Democrats something, in this bill or in future legislation, to compensate for the loss on an issue of deep principle. Regardless, the bill should be passed. Americans are weary of crime and want something done.